Well the first point is you don't need a referendum in the UK to do this bit "..."to seek changes for the good of the whole EU.." do you.

As it's our governments job to protect our interests just what is it he thinks is against our interest in the EU at the moment that cold not be dealt with by "..seek(ing) changes for the good of the whole EU..."?

As to improving the UK's terms he hasn't said what he means so you seem to have a lot of blind faith in Cameron and his referendum.

We can however safely assume one of the key ones he and big business want to see is this one I mentioned earlier in the thread:

• A complete repatriation of social and employment laws such as the working time directive which imposes a 48-hour working week. Britain already has an opt-out from that aspect of the directive.

Now personally I feel the majority in this country are far better of due to EU social and employment laws and therefore what I would be being asked to vote on is this (in part):

Do I want to stay in the EU if Cameron can get those laws repatriated and makes it possible for my employer to demand I work long hours and have the ability to sack me on the spot?

Or, do I want to leave the EU if Cameron can't secure an opt out I am not in favour of?

That is apparently all that is on offer and if we leave they will rip up the social and employment laws anyway.

So at the moment as I see it I will be presented with two choices neither of of which I want to vote for.

And before anyone says abstain, abstentions don't count "for" anything and would not prevent one of the two options winning the vote.

So those who see a referendum as a very democratic way of doing things totally miss the point with this one. [uThe nature of the questions likely to be asked make it extremely undemocratic[/u for the reasons explained.

It will be like being asked would I like to be hanged or shot.

Therefore the only valid referendum on EU membership is a straight in/out one in the same way that Scotland has a straightforward question for remaining part of the UK.

Cameron won't go that route because he doesn't want us to leave and calculates his fudge will buy off enough voters for the UK to remain in, will give him a better chance to win the UK election in 2015 and will kick the can down the road as far as pacifying his Eurosceptic MP's goes.

He has proven a hostage to about 90 MP's and what we have ended up with is our parliamentary democracy being circumvented by that minority of MP's who see a chance to get their minority view enacted.

If they claim they represent a majority view of the people despite being a minority in parliament then what they should do is join UKIP and go to the polls in 2015 on an EU exit ticket not circumvent our democratic process by winning a referendum based on inadequate questions.

I'm sorry but just gainsaying what I post does not constitute a reasoned argument.
You could begin with a little bit of research, you could start with countries like Norway, Turkey or Switzerland.
You'll find very quickly that our economy is unlike that of any of these countries and that their positions vis-a-vis the EU could not be good for us, you'll find that Norway has had to implement various laws (e.g. Social and Employment, one of the areas that Cameron wants out of ... and also policing, another area that Cameron wants out of) and has adopted 75% of EU laws (some by choice, some because they simply had to) without the benefit of being able to vote on these laws to begin with.
Switzerland has had to negotiate more than a hundred individual bilateral agreements, spread over decades, to avoid various individual tariffs ... do we want to start our own all over again?
Again, Switzerland has to accept many laws in whose formulation they have no say and no vote.
Most importantly, Switzerland is not allowed to sell non-insurance financial services into the EU ... not a great idea for the UK whose fincial and services sector is huge. Switzerland is thinking of maybe adopting EU rules for its insurance services as a way of accessing EU markets. Oh, and by the way, Switzerland has paid about 4 bn Euros so far for the privilege plus it has built a railway through the Alps (15bn Euros), losing the money from road transport, because the EU wanted that connection through Switzerland.
Turkey isn't a great example, as it onbly exports goods and no services to the EU and has pragmatically accepted many EU demands in order to further its own bid for membership.... hence it is not a model for a UK leaving the EU.

There will not be a referendum because Cameron will not be PM in 2015.

Hopefully

If he goes into that election as the only party leader offering a referendum on the EU, with the largely rabidly anti-EU media banging away about it, I wouldn't bet against him TBH.

Never underestimate the gullibility of the electorate.

I think he will be PM after the election but will stand down / be removed to avoid the referendum. In my opinion, it's just a cynical ploy to stop the drift of supporters to UKIP, appease back-benchers and differentiate themselves from Labour.

No chance, if he wins the election, there will be no coup.


But I agree with that bit.

Same here.

Mind, it smacks of desperation, given that the next scheduled general election is more than two years away, to already be trying to bribe a portion of the electorate.

It's interesting seeing that business is split between those who see the long-term risks as outlined by yourself in this thread, whereas others are presumably so short-sighted that all they're thinking about is being able to exploit their workforce ever more.

One wonders if the latter are from the same group that begged Gideon to cut and cut and then cut some more, promising that they would create absolutely millions of new jobs.

Business is spolit on a self-interest basis. Big business likes it because more "red tape" prevents smaller businesses competing with them as small businesses do not have the staff, wealth or infra-structure to deal with compliance. Smaller buinesses (except those niche players who already have strong export business within the EU) don't like it for the same reason.

So you fully understand EU and non EU trading do you? mmm....

1. Consider that "90% of British exports would not face tariffs and even for those that do, average tariff levels are now generally low. They are charged only on trade in goods and not on services or income.

2. Our trade in goods is below 50% of our total trade and the cost of collecting these low tariffs on goods is more than the cost of tariff collected overall. Some notable sectors could in theory be subject to significant tariffs (eg. cars at around 8%) but reciprocal tariffs would damage EU exporters too, so the incentive for the mutual amelioration of tariffs is strong. This does however depend on negotiating a new positive relationship with the EU" which is what the PM is setting out to do.

Since the time we joined the EEC and after several General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) tariffs are now generally much lower. Many are negligible, or have been eliminated altogether. So today, customs unions are becoming less and less relevant. There are no substantial customs unions anywhere in the developed world except for the EU, which in global terms looks more and more anachronistic. It is interesting to note that neither ASEAN nor NAFTA are customs unions.



Honda recently announced it is making 800 redundancies at its Swindon plant. A Honda spokesman said, "sustained conditions of low demand in European markets make it necessary to realign Honda's business structure."

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have forecast business to remain flat in 2013. Paul Everitt, the chief executive of the SMM&T said "There are difficulties in Europe, there is no doubt about it. But the market in the UK has held up reasonably well."

In contrast to this position (the Single Market) then, one might look to Jaguar Land Rover, who only two days after the Honda announcement stated that they will be creating 800 new jobs at its factory in Solihull. Why? Because demand for its luxury vehicles from countries such as China, the US and Russia is now so strong, it needed to recruit those additional staff. So, irrespective of the UK’s car-buying activity – which seemed to perform well last year, at least – a focus on the Single Market means job losses; the orientation to the rest of the world means job creation.



Yes it is just scare stuff and none of it based on facts.

Consider: Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which provides for a member state to withdraw from the EU, is explicit that “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

Such agreements must conform to the principles set out in Article 3(5) which includes “free and fair trade”. This is why Jacques Delors referred to “a free-trade agreement” as an option for a new UK-EU relationship in his comments in December.

I note you have not answered my questions.

You questioned my stat so it is reasonable to ask you to put your forward your figures.

I also asked you to state the net monetary benefit or otherwise p.a. to the UK of current EU membership, as you claim to be aware of where to find all the facts?

The UK is about to (or already has) overtaken France as the 3rd largest economy in the EU and a major net contributor financially. Don't confuse the argument by comparing our situation with Norway, Switzerland or Turkey. Our position is totally different and the EU would be so much weaker without us and the EU needs to keep open acces to our market.

Do you agree that our PM should try and improve the UK's terms of membership as a time when the EU embarks on a course of change its self?

And as you missed the PM's speech and questions at Davros this morning, have you managed to hear it all yet?

We are the 6th largest trading nation in the world with 63 free trade agreements with other non-EU countries and with a heathly trade surplus unlike the large and growing deficit with the EU. As an autonimous trading nation we would be free to open up free trade with the US and if we were to join in a new EFTA arrangement whilst remaining ‘associated but not absorbed’ as Churchill put it, we could prosper exponentially into the future.

If you think that there are only about 90 MP's who have serious doubts about the EU then why are you so scared of a referendum?

You say the DC has not said what terms he wants to repatriate yet you make employment laws the central plank of your case against him! You have made your decision before hearing the evidence.

The PM has stated that there will be a straight In or Out vote in the referendum which is what you say "is the only valid referendum".......so what's the problem?

A referendum gives the British people the final say on what is such an important decision. If you are so confident that everyone is happy with the EU then why have so little faith in democracy.

Maybe we will have one next on the legalisation of drugs. Im sure the conservatives and the right wing press will be in favour of that.

The "war on drugs" probably costs more anually than the total EU budget

Better than someone who spent 2 hours assembling some largely irrelevant Google and Wikipedia quotes, yes.

You didn't even remove all the quotation marks when you copy-and-pasted them.

What is the alternative? Does the idea of Milliband, Balls, Cooper really fill you with hope for the future?

Cameron and his mob are completely out of their depth but nothing Labour did towards the end of last their term suggests they will be any better. No Brown, no Darling, No David Milliband!!

Some things are guaranteed if Labour get in: debt will rocket, the public sector will grow significantly, those on benefits will get above inflation increases etc You will still get a referendum on Europe.

The caveats included in Cameron's speech do not suggest a referendum is anything approaching a certainty. Look more closely at what he has offered.

Look, I am not the greatest fan of Labour by a very long chalk, but what are you on about?

By 2010, unemployment had stabilised – and there was growth in the economy.

Under the circumstances caused by the 2008 [iglobal [/i financial crisis, which was [inot[/i caused by the UK government of the day, what do you think would have been so much better – not least given the fact that Gideon and this mob actually took that situation and turned it into a double dip and probably now a triple dip, and all without cutting the deficit as they pledged, but increasing it?

Overall, the great British public reaction seems to be "but am I bothered?" zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2013/ ... splat.html

Overall, the great British public reaction seems to be "but am I bothered?" zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2013/ ... splat.html

Labour by their own admission would need to reduced the deficit, they would have had cut public spending - the idea that by 2010 the worst was over and the UK was going to see years of sustained growth is simply not credible. Before the election Labour had continued to increase borrowing/deficit in the hope of getting re-elected. Other than cutting spending slower what else would they done differently, the macro economic position would still be the same especially in Europe and the US.

You can blame the banking crisis for all the problems and Labour were completely blameless but some countries haven't suffered anywhere near the issues we have encountered following the banking fall out.

This is going to be an election defining issue - UKIP will gain massively in the next election.

When push comes to shove Labour will also cave in and promise this in their manifesto.

That's not an answer to the questions I posited in response to your claim about the state that Labour 'left the country in'.

Largely from the Tories – if the [iTelegraph[/i forums are anything to go by – thus splitting the Conservative vote.

To begin with, you did not differentiate between trade in Goods and trade in Services.
In terms of trade in goods the UK has had a balance of trade [udeficit[/u with both the EU [uand the rest of the world[/u for quite some time.
Services are what puts us in trade surplus with the rest of the world.
I have already said that the services area needs the same attention to harmonisation that the EU gave to the trade in goods.
Secondly, for some reason, you chose a random stat from 2011 (or nearly, it looked about £2bn out to me) rather than either a trend view over a longer period of time or more recent numbers.
We operate on a more level playing field in the EU these days, if Germany can produce a goods surplus, so could we ... but that would mean being more German in our approach and, going by your comments so far, I can't see that sitting comfortably with you.


I have never claimed to be aware of all the facts.
Perhaps you can oblige?
How you are going to monetarise the EUs geopolitical clout remains to be seen.


As contributions are calculated by the richest putting the most in and the poorest getting the most development out, that is not a surprise.


At present there are a limited number of ways that a non-EU state can trade with the EU, by mentioning Norway/Turkey/Switzerland I was considering whether we could emulate any of the current examples.
Regarding your assertion that the EU needs us more than we need them ... about half of our exports go to the EU, but only about 20% of the EU's exports come to us ... we must also remember that the impact of possible loss of that 20% is diluted by a spread of up to 26 countries ... who has the whip hand?


Of course .... but that would naturally be part of the discussions, as it has been with all treaties preceding it ... it doesn't require a) Advance veto (as Cameron tried and failed with before, and excluded himself from discussions) or b) Posturing and a promise of a referendum years ahead, as a sop to the Bill Cash tendency, whilst destabilising inward investment as investors try to second-guess the outcome of a referendum to decide whether the terms gained were satisfactory, when those desired terms have not yet been articulated in anything other than a vehement but vague desire for repatriation of powers. (I am in favour of subsidiarity where it is warranted ... so might be happy to see specifics be discussed).


Who said I missed it?


Whoah there, those free trade agreements were all negotiated and put in place by the EU.


Earlier you said that I was confusing the argument by mentioning Norway and other traders into the EU but now you bring up EFTA, of which Norway is one of the the biggest economies, if not the biggest.
I had chosen Norway as an example precisely because it is an EFTA member.
Would you have preferred me to compare the UK with Lichtenstein or Iceland?

I don't follow you.
If everyone offers a referendum, why would UKIP gain?